鸟类保护遗传学的最新进展——以西南柳捕蝇鸟为例

Q3 Agricultural and Biological Sciences Open Ornithology Journal Pub Date : 2016-12-22 DOI:10.2174/1874453201609010060
R. Zink
{"title":"鸟类保护遗传学的最新进展——以西南柳捕蝇鸟为例","authors":"R. Zink","doi":"10.2174/1874453201609010060","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It is sometimes said that scientists are entitled to their own opinions but not their own set of facts. This suggests that application of the scientific method ought to lead to a single conclusion from a given set of data. However, sometimes scientists have conflicting opinions about which analytical methods are most appropriate or which subsets of existing data are most relevant, resulting in different conclusions. Thus, scientists might actually lay claim to different sets of facts. However, if a contrary conclusion is reached by selecting a subset of data, this conclusion should be carefully scrutinized to determine whether consideration of the full data set leads to different conclusions. This is important because conservation agencies are required to consider all of the best available data and make a decision based on them. Therefore, exploring reasons why different conclusions are reached from the same body of data has relevance for management of species. The purpose of this paper was to explore how two groups of researchers can examine the same data and reach opposite conclusions in the case of the taxonomy of the endangered subspecies Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus). It was shown that use of subsets of data and characters rather than reliance on entire data sets can explain conflicting conclusions. It was recommend that agencies tasked with making conservation decisions rely on analyses that include all relevant molecular, ecological, behavioral, and morphological data, which in this case show that the subspecies is not valid, and hence its listing is likely not warranted.","PeriodicalId":39058,"journal":{"name":"Open Ornithology Journal","volume":"9 1","pages":"60-69"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Current Topics in Avian Conservation Genetics with Special Reference to the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher\",\"authors\":\"R. Zink\",\"doi\":\"10.2174/1874453201609010060\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"It is sometimes said that scientists are entitled to their own opinions but not their own set of facts. This suggests that application of the scientific method ought to lead to a single conclusion from a given set of data. However, sometimes scientists have conflicting opinions about which analytical methods are most appropriate or which subsets of existing data are most relevant, resulting in different conclusions. Thus, scientists might actually lay claim to different sets of facts. However, if a contrary conclusion is reached by selecting a subset of data, this conclusion should be carefully scrutinized to determine whether consideration of the full data set leads to different conclusions. This is important because conservation agencies are required to consider all of the best available data and make a decision based on them. Therefore, exploring reasons why different conclusions are reached from the same body of data has relevance for management of species. The purpose of this paper was to explore how two groups of researchers can examine the same data and reach opposite conclusions in the case of the taxonomy of the endangered subspecies Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus). It was shown that use of subsets of data and characters rather than reliance on entire data sets can explain conflicting conclusions. It was recommend that agencies tasked with making conservation decisions rely on analyses that include all relevant molecular, ecological, behavioral, and morphological data, which in this case show that the subspecies is not valid, and hence its listing is likely not warranted.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39058,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Open Ornithology Journal\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"60-69\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-12-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Open Ornithology Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2174/1874453201609010060\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Agricultural and Biological Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Ornithology Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/1874453201609010060","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Agricultural and Biological Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

人们有时会说,科学家有权持有自己的观点,但不能持有自己的一套事实。这表明,科学方法的应用应该从一组给定的数据中得出一个单一的结论。然而,有时科学家们对哪种分析方法最合适或哪些现有数据子集最相关有矛盾的意见,导致不同的结论。因此,科学家们实际上可能声称有不同的事实。然而,如果通过选择数据子集得出相反的结论,则应仔细审查该结论,以确定考虑整个数据集是否会得出不同的结论。这很重要,因为保护机构需要考虑所有最好的可用数据,并在此基础上做出决定。因此,探究从同一数据体得出不同结论的原因对物种管理具有重要意义。本文的目的是探讨两组研究人员如何在濒危亚种西南柳捕蝇草(emidonax traillii extimus)的分类中对相同的数据进行分析,并得出相反的结论。研究表明,使用数据和字符的子集而不是依赖整个数据集可以解释相互矛盾的结论。有人建议,负责作出保护决定的机构依赖于包括所有相关分子、生态、行为和形态数据的分析,在这种情况下,这些数据表明该亚种是无效的,因此它的名单可能没有根据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Current Topics in Avian Conservation Genetics with Special Reference to the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher
It is sometimes said that scientists are entitled to their own opinions but not their own set of facts. This suggests that application of the scientific method ought to lead to a single conclusion from a given set of data. However, sometimes scientists have conflicting opinions about which analytical methods are most appropriate or which subsets of existing data are most relevant, resulting in different conclusions. Thus, scientists might actually lay claim to different sets of facts. However, if a contrary conclusion is reached by selecting a subset of data, this conclusion should be carefully scrutinized to determine whether consideration of the full data set leads to different conclusions. This is important because conservation agencies are required to consider all of the best available data and make a decision based on them. Therefore, exploring reasons why different conclusions are reached from the same body of data has relevance for management of species. The purpose of this paper was to explore how two groups of researchers can examine the same data and reach opposite conclusions in the case of the taxonomy of the endangered subspecies Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus). It was shown that use of subsets of data and characters rather than reliance on entire data sets can explain conflicting conclusions. It was recommend that agencies tasked with making conservation decisions rely on analyses that include all relevant molecular, ecological, behavioral, and morphological data, which in this case show that the subspecies is not valid, and hence its listing is likely not warranted.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Open Ornithology Journal
Open Ornithology Journal Agricultural and Biological Sciences-Animal Science and Zoology
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Open Ornithology Journal is an Open Access online journal, which publishes research articles, reviews/mini-reviews, letters and guest edited single topic issues in all important areas of ornithology including avian behaviour,genetics, phylogeography , conservation, demography, ecology, evolution, and morphology. The Open Ornithology Journal, a peer-reviewed journal, is an important and reliable source of current information on developments in the field. The emphasis will be on publishing quality papers rapidly and making them freely available to researchers worldwide.
期刊最新文献
Description of New American Carduelis/Spinus Bird Species in La Paz (Bolivia): C./S. lapazensis. Glucose Concentrations in Closely Related Titmice (Baeolophus) Species Linked to Regional Habitat Differences Across an Avian Hybrid Zone Bird Diversity in Nensebo Moist Afromontane Forest Fragment, South Eastern Ethiopia. Influence of Disturbance on Avian Communities in Agricultural Conservation Buffers in Mississippi, USA Threats and Vision for the Conservation of Galápagos Birds
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1